Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
with the great improvements in technology that unleashed the powers of capitalism, and capitalism manage to produce immense wealth. something unpleasant but -- and at the same time produce poverty that had never been known before. the debt is to capitalism what hell is to christianity. unpleasant, but absolutely necessary. in a sense, capitalism is about ecological economics, even though capitalists don't want to hear this. it is about recycling. we had heard of the term by the 1970's, especially about the green movement in europe. capitalism has always been recycling. the process of described is a process whereby the entrepreneur is now forced to be an entrepreneur. the ex-peasants, they did not choose to be entrepreneurs. they had to be. they used debt. bringing it to the present, energizing the production process, producing the wealth from which he hopes that he will be able to repay the debt. the moneylenders, later the bankers. cover for the fact that he had paid wages for capital goods. hoping there is something left for him, for profit. debt is all about intertemporal recycling. b
, they are rooted in scientific discovery and technological innovation. there has to be a greater appreciation for the role of science and technology in society. we have to get young women engaged early. we found that if young women are engaged in experiments to work, if they are part of the team, it makes a big difference. we try to create an intergene rational mentoring system. when young women come through the ranks through the promotion and tenure process, we have to ensure fairness of the system. it is a complex problem. that is why it is hard for people to talk about it. >> why is it important that there are more women? >> it is important that there be more science. we are about to face what i call the quiet crisis. you have a number of scientists in this country who came of age when i did. they are beginning to retire. those retirements are going to accelerate over the next few years. the second hidden variable is that we depend strongly on immigrants. we have always been a nation of immigrants. i do not think people appreciate how much of our science and engineering work force is made
, then distribution, then production. in conjunction with the great improvements in technology that unleashed the powers of capitalism, and capitalism manage to produce immense wealth, and at the same time produce poverty that had never been known before. the debt is to capitalism what hell is to christianity. unpleasant, but absolutely necessary for it to work. in a sense, capitalism is about ecological economics, even though capitalists don't want to hear this. it is about recycling. we had heard of the term by the 1970's, especially about the green movement in europe. capitalism has always been recycling. the process of described is a process whereby the entrepreneur is now forced to be an entrepreneur. the ex-peasants, they did not choose to be entrepreneurs. they had to be. they used debt. bringing it to the present, energizing the production process, producing the wealth from which he hopes that he will be able to repay the debt. the moneylenders, later the bankers. cover for the fact that he had paid wages for capital goods. hoping there is something left for him, for profit. debt is a
, the technology revolution. and one reason i think that it's really pretty clear that those are key drivers is this is a global phenomenon. and i do sometimes think the american discourse about it tends to be very american. so i'm always quite entertained when i read about, you know, a paper that says rising income inequality in the united states is due to this one particular law passed in the 980s. -- 1980s. okay, then how does that account for rising income inequality in canada or, indeed, even in france, in germany, in the united kingdom? i mean, it's happening all over the world, it's also happening in emerging markets. but i think it is important to face that scary because if you see it just as a political phenomenon, you know, you're going to lose sight of what i think is the biggest challenge which is that these, actually, quite benign economic forces, right? i love the technology revolution, i'm a google addict. they're also drivers of social and political consequences which are not quite so benign. the way i like to look at it, and this is a quote from peter orszag, is, you know, h
of years as opposed to decades or centuries, because that's what the capitalists and did through technology and innovation, the moment you start doing that, like having a machine that prints money, so you want to use more faster and more intensely, producing more money. if you overreach and take too much value from the future to bring it into the present, you too. the sectors in which this dynamic annapolis process is manchin to push the boundaries of technology and create wealth -- in amsterdam and holland the with-it is always local lines. there will always be surplus riches. regis and surplus regions. southern england was in debt. now is the obvious. similarly, you have new york state in surplus, washington state inertification plus. it started in manchester, in amsterdam. it is always localized. there will always be defecit regions and surplus regions. so, manchester northern england was in surplus back then. southern england was in debt. now it is the opposite. similarly, you have new york state in surplus, washington state in surplus. illinois, the dakotas in debt. missouri is your eq
to support a growing population. we have not develop the technologies to solve those problems. here at home we have a very high unemployment rate. and of course, we have a generation of aging baby boomers, like myself, who are wondering how we are going to support ourselves and our retirement. these are all big problems. my thesis is that we will get much further toward solving them if we can engage the power of the private sector to contribute to peace and prosperity. i tell people, i love corporations. i study them the way jane goodall studies chimpanzees. and i appreciate their potential to help solve their as problems -- to help solve those problems, to provide jobs to people who need to make a living, and provide decent investment returns. to come up with the technologies that can help us have a more sustainable future where we are in harmony with the environment and the planet. a lot of corporations are doing those things, but not as well as corporations could. corporations could contribute still more toward human welfare and avoid doing damage in some areas where they do, if only we
ruining the season as kids get more accustomed to technology? >> microsoft windows 8 gets more bad press today, as "the new york times" said it is not leading to a boost in pc sales. is there anything that can turn that lagging sector around? futures moving lower, as concerns about the fiscal cliff talks weigh on the market. talks about progress toward a deal sent the down lower by almost 521 points on friday. s&p up almost 14% on the year. it's interesting, this year we've had so many unnatural phenomenon taking place, whether it's the effects of the fed's monetary policy, year end, fiscal cliff tax related issues. the motivations are a little bit different this time around than they were last year. >> yeah. it's not as pressing, some would argue. some were actually saying on friday, maybe it would have been better if the markets had a sharper sell-off because that could have forced the lawmakers to do something as opposed to leave for obama to have a hastily called friday evening press conference saying, you know what, congress, you have ten days, you go work it out. it's doable. >> it
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7